Man As Symbol of God

Man as Symbol of God By ANDERS HULTGÅRD It is a well-known fact that Judaism and Zoroastrianism, being prophetic religions with a monotheistic character, present many affinities (Winston, Hultgård). One point of similarity is a clear tendency towards aniconic representation of the Divine, which, from the beginning, was the mark of Judaism as well as Zoroastrianism, being religions with a nomadic back- ground. As a result of the confrontation with the agricultural and urban civilisations of the ancient Near East, attempts were made to introduce iconic representations of the Divine to be used in the cult. Many groups within Judaism, and most probably also within Zoroastrianism', levelled a vigorous resistance to these attempts. As a consequence, there arose in both religions a strong movement to prohibit cult-images, which in Judaism also tended to develop into a prohibition of figurative art in general2. This movement became victorious in the end and its aniconic conception of the Divine has ever since remained the normative attitude of both Jews and Zoro- astrians. What were the reasons for these attitudes in Judaism and in Zoro- astrianism? And were there theological ideas that could function as a sub- stitute to cult-images of the Divine? These are the questions that briefly will be discussed in this paper. As to Judaism, it is important to point out that from the time of the Second Temple and onwards, the prohibition of making any image of YHWH was beyond all dispute. It is during the Second Temple period also that a resistance to all forms of man-like representations is taking shape and receives some of its clearest expressions. Thus, the Hasmonaeans never put their effigies on the coins they issued and the same is true of Herod the Great3, although he introduced figurative art and freestanding sculptures in the non- Jewish parts of his kingdom4. In the first century A.D., the attitude towards human images became more rigorous and was linked to a growing opposition against the Roman rules. The Jewish historian Josephus reports some incidents which bear witness to a strong reluctance felt by the Jews against It is the merit of Mary Boyce, 98 ff., to have coins found in Reifenberg, 10 ff., and called attention to an iconoclastic movement Meshorer, 41 ff. within Zoroastrianism. Cf. for exemple Josephus Antiquities For a discussion of this development, cf. XV,364; cf. also Roth, 507. the studies of Gutmann 10 ff.; Roth 505 ff. 5 Cf. Roth, 507. 3 Cf. the documentation of ancient Jewish Man as symbol of God 111 any form of images6. It seems, however, that a distinction was made in this respect between the holy city of Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine'. From the middle of the second century and up to the sixth, a more tolerant attitude concerning figurative art appeared. This is demonstrated by some sayings in the Talmud' and above all by the lavishly decorated synagogues of Palestine and Syria constructed during this periods. Here, we find animal figures and, what is more remarkable, representations of human and angelic beings') which probably meant more than pure decorations to the Jews who gathered in these synagogues for prayer and religious instruction". How- ever, from the late sixth century, a more rigorous attitude towards images of human beings can be observed, which also seems to have produced iconoclastic movements". When coming under the rule of Islam, most of the Jewish communities rejected any form of figurative art13. The reason put forward by classical Judaism for an objection to images of the Divinity and representations of human figures is that it is forbidden by the torah. This is the answer given already by Josephus in various passages of his works". But it must be borne in mind that the rejection of the making of iconic figures of man was based on an interpretation of the Second Com- mandment (Exodus 20,4, Deuteronomy 5,8; see also Deut. 4,15). These passages, however, were in need of a precision since they could be inter- preted in different ways according to varying contexts and historical situa- tions". The main theological reason for not representing YHWH in any 6 Pilate introduces into Jerusalem Roman 9 It is noteworthy that the synagogue of Dura standards which had the images of the em- Europos, constructed in the middle of the peror attached to them. This was felt as a third century, was preceded by an earlier one violation of the law against the making of an whose pictures were without figures of man iconic figure of man and caused an immense and animals. excitement among the Jews and Pilate was 10 Let us mention as examples the synagogue forced to remove them, see Antiquities of Dura Europos, of which Goodenough XVIII,55 ff., and War 11,169 ff. The whole 12,158 ff., gives a detailed description. Fur- Jewish world is stirred up by the attempt of ther, Beth Alpha (Saller 23 ff.) and Gerasa Caligula to have his statue set up in the tem- (Salter 43 f.) with their rich mosaics de- ple of Jerusalem, see Ant. XVIII,261 ff. and picting also human figures. In Chorazin there War 11,184 ff. can still be seen in lout, as was by the present In Ant. XVIII,55 the incident mentioned author in 1978, a sculptured column repre- above is explained by Josephus with a re- senting a human face, probably an angelic ference to the Second Commandment: "our being. law forbids the making of images". In War 11 For a discussion of Jewish symbols found 11,170 he gives a precision by stating that the in the synagogues, cf. Goodenough 12,64 ff. law permit no image to be set up in Jerusa- 12 Some synagogues in Galilee show traces of lem. According to Ant. XV,277 images of iconoclastic activity, as for instance those of men could not be tolerated in Jerusalem. Cf. Bar`am and Capernaum (Loffreda, 60). also Talmud Yer. Avodah Zarah 3,l which 13 Cf. Roth, 521. seems to hint at special laws for the holy city 14 Cf. Antiquities XVIII,55 and 121, XV,277 when reporting that before the destruction 70 War 11,195 and Against Apion 11,75 and 191. A.D. all likenesses were to be found in Jeru- 15 The opposition against Rome favoured a salem except those of man. rigid interpretation of the Second Command- 8 Cf. Talmud Yer. Av. Zar. 3,3; 4,1; cf. also ment. In Babylonia at a later period, how- Roth, 508. ever, the rabbis could frequent synagogues 112 ANDERS HULTGÅRD image was no doubt to preserve his transcendental character, but this reason could apparently not be applied to the prohibition of representations of man. However, the idea found in Genesis l,26-27 and 9,6 that man was made in the image of God, would constitute an excellent theological argu- ment against the use of iconic figures of man, because in that case something of the Divinity would also be represented. The idea of man as created in the image of God is, however, as far as I have been able to ascertain, never ex- plicitly connected to the objection of making images of human beings. One ground for this may be that rabbinic Judaism tends to interpret the statement of Genesis l,26-27 in the sense that man is not an image of God but of the angels or of Adam as primordial man's. Neither intertestamental nor rabbinic sources enlarge on the interpretation of the idea of man's god- likeness'''. But some texts from the Second Temple period offer a more precise meaning, which seems to stress an identity between God and man Here, we may speak about man as symbol of God. The Testament of Naph- tali thus states: "There is no inclination and no thought (of man) which the Lord knoweth not, for He created every man after his own image."18 We read in the Wisdom of Salomon 2,23 that: "God created man for immortality and made him the image of His own eternal self.' These passages reveal the intimate relation thought to exist between God and man. It seems to me probable that, to many Jews in the time of the Second Temple, man could function as a symbol of God which would tacitly imply an objection to iconic figures of man. Zoroastrianism, as well as other forms of the ancient Iranian religion, is characterized by an aniconic conception of the Divine. Herodotus records that it is not the custom of the Persians to make and set up statues, temples and altars. Instead, they ascend to the peaks of the mountains and there offer sacrifice to the God of heaven20. The negative attitude towards cult-images is reflected in many actions performed by the Achaemenians21. where, for patriotic reasons, statues of the an interpretation seems to have been the rab- ruler were erected, see Talmud Babli Av. binical view not to instruct the common Zar. 43b and Rosh Hashanah 24b. The ar- people in the meaning of the first chapter of chaeological evidence from the synagogues Genesis. of the third to the sixth centuries must be ex- 18 Test. Napht. 5,2: on obx kYCL nay plained in the light of a less rigid interpreta- xai Itiiioa Evvoia rjv °int Erin x6eto5' tion of the Second Commandment. Ttavta yap 61/13QCO7tOV EXTLGE MAT' Ei,x6voi 16 Cf. the texts and the discussion given by Eautoii. Jervell, 84 ff. , 96 ff. 19 The Greek text runs as follows: o-re 17 This idea appears mostly as a quotation °cog glaLOCV 'rev Civeountov atpOccooia from Genesis without any precise interpreta- xal Eixova ti15 toiag aioikrpcog Erroimoev tion.

Load more